and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

Colson- a nondiscount department store : because of XYZ reasons this caused the other stores to close down their services. And those stores were replaced by another stores(XYZ could be good quality material,services etc but not reduction in price)

SpendLess discount department store: This caused other stores to close down their services.

Conclusion: As in the colson's case, here also the new stores will be occupied quickly.

Question: what factor can attack the conclusion.Ans: Something that can reduce the probability of opening new stores.

B -> If new stores opened after colson's store was opened were all discounted, what factor can attract the store owners to occupy the stores? There are already discount stores in the market. So this weakens the conclusion.

A-> In the worst case, this will strengthen the conclusion. If shopping at colson is less after the opening of SpendLess , then SpendLess could have caused. This might influence SpendLess owners to open more such stores. Not a strong reason.

E-> Why the other stores will close if they do not have stiff competition with SpendLess or colson. Take worst case: If they do have some unique products, the demand for those niche products would eventually increase and would influence the store owners to establish more stores to meet the demand.This will strengthen but a weak arguement. _________________

FACTS OF NON-DISCOUNT STORES- All nondiscount store closed because of competition from a non-discount store (Colson). - After that there a new store has opened at the location of closed non-discount stores.

FACTS OF DISCOUNT STORES.- All discount stores in Goreville are expected to closed because of competition from a discount store (SpendLess).

CONCLUSION:a new store will open at the locations of closed discount stores.

Assumption: The fact of nondiscount stores cases is also true for discount stores cases.

The conclusion will be weakened if discount stores and nondiscount stores do not follow the same pattern.

B correctly states that the stores that have opened since Colson’s opened are discount stores, NOT non-discount stores ==> we cannot use the fact of nondiscount stores to make a conclusion for discount stores.

Hope it helps. _________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

haha ok here's my explanation.Lets look at it sequentially :1. Colson - a non discount story (v imp) opened.2. A new store opened for every store that closed because of 1.3. Spendless discount store opens4. Goreville's discount store close down5. Will these empty locations get filled up ????

Statement 2 is used as support for conclusion - statement 5. B attacks statement 2.

notahug wrote:

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened. [so that means colson will do less business - not relevant ]B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores. [ BINGO !! now these shops, will close down if a non discount store opens. But what can replace these ???]C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had. [ I fail to see how this is relevant ]D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades. [Irrelevant again]E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s. [so if that is the case then these shops will not close down in the first place right ?]

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I'm not an expert but this is my reasoning: the argument says that since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s. The argument then concludes that the vacancy (of the places where the discount stores that closed because of the competition with SpendLess discount department) will not be for long: new (discount - this is the conclusion hint) store will open at those vacancies. It is important that we know the conclusion "those locations will not stay vacant for long".

Note that when we read this, we will see that gap between the 2 statements: there is no connection between them. The first premise talks about discount stores. The second premise talks about the nondiscount stores. At the abstract level, the argument tries to conclude that the phenomenon that happens for the nondiscount stores will also happen for the similar matter of discount stores. This is the gap in the reasoning as the argument tries to use analogy in a loose way: things that happen in one situation won't necessarily in another.

Answer B attack that hole: it points out the difference between the 2 situations: discount stores v.s. nondiscount stores. It says that since the ones that fill up the spots left by (presumably but wrong - nondiscount) stores are indeed discount stores. It means that the spots left by the discount stores (that can't compete with the discount store SpendLess) won't be necessarily filled up (by the discount stores).

This one is subtle and definitely takes more than 2 minutes for me. To solve this, I think you need to look at a higher, abstract level instead of the details. Also, if you think of other ways of weakening an argument such as find another cause, or weaking the causal relationship, you will be stucked because the 2 premise has no connection (which is a good sign that you should step back and look at the whole thing as a whole).

every good, I reread the question and understand it thoroughly. Thanks and kudo for you.

catennacio wrote:

notahug wrote:

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I'm not an expert but this is my reasoning: the argument says that since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s. The argument then concludes that the vacancy (of the places where the discount stores that closed because of the competition with SpendLess discount department) will not be for long: new (discount - this is the conclusion hint) store will open at those vacancies. It is important that we know the conclusion "those locations will not stay vacant for long".

Note that when we read this, we will see that gap between the 2 statements: there is no connection between them. The first premise talks about discount stores. The second premise talks about the nondiscount stores. At the abstract level, the argument tries to conclude that the phenomenon that happens for the nondiscount stores will also happen for the similar matter of discount stores. This is the gap in the reasoning as the argument tries to use analogy in a loose way: things that happen in one situation won't necessarily in another.

Answer B attack that hole: it points out the difference between the 2 situations: discount stores v.s. nondiscount stores. It says that since the ones that fill up the spots left by (presumably but wrong - nondiscount) stores are indeed discount stores. It means that the spots left by the discount stores (that can't compete with the discount store SpendLess) won't be necessarily filled up (by the discount stores).

This one is subtle and definitely takes more than 2 minutes for me. To solve this, I think you need to look at a higher, abstract level instead of the details. Also, if you think of other ways of weakening an argument such as find another cause, or weaking the causal relationship, you will be stucked because the 2 premise has no connection (which is a good sign that you should step back and look at the whole thing as a whole).

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened.B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores.C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I first chose E, then a second thought I chose CYr reasoning pls!

B.

Here is the argument:Colson eliminate all competitors, but competitors came back and fill up the space. Spendless also eliminate all competitors, and like Colson case, competitors will come back.

B validates that all the competitors that came back in Colson case are DISCOUNTED stores. This means that the competition came back because they can now compete by offering less price. However, this is different from SpendLess. Spendless is a discount store and competitors will not come back for the same reason as Colson case; thus, this weakens the argument.

very hard question why it is hard because what we prethink before we read answer choices is different from what is in correct answer .

premise: the reopening of nondiscount happens after 5 years.conclusion: there will be reopening of discount.

prethink: - assumption: situation is similar in both non discount and discount store- weakener: must show that the situation is different.

go to answer choices

there is no match which say about different situation.

reread b, we see that b is close the what we prethink.

why this question is hard?because what we prethink is different from the correct answer . it take rather long time to read and understand the argument and it take rather long time to reread the answer choice. This question is rather time consuming.

so, hard reasoning and long time makes this question very hard. I do not think that in the test room , we are calm enough to do this question in 2 minutes. gmat presents question which look simple but hard.

[quote="notahug"]Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I think it is E. The argument that the discount stores are expected to close within 5 years is based on what happened to the non dscount stores having to compete with Colson's. HOwever, if those discount stores, in question, sell things that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's they will probably not close since they are not directly competing against them anymore. Basically, this argument becomes flawed with the information stated in E since the previous scenario, with the non discount store can not be translated to the new scenario, since they are not slightly different.

if the stem had also said that the non discount stores closed, even though they sold different things, then E would not weaken the argument.

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I think it is E. The argument that the discount stores are expected to close within 5 years is based on what happened to the non dscount stores having to compete with Colson's. HOwever, if those discount stores, in question, sell things that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's they will probably not close since they are not directly competing against them anymore. Basically, this argument becomes flawed with the information stated in E since the previous scenario, with the non discount store can not be translated to the new scenario, since they are not slightly different.

if the stem had also said that the non discount stores closed, even though they sold different things, then E would not weaken the argument.

You are right!

E

1. Flaw Assumption of this argument is analogy, in which the author said what happened with NON-discount store in privous 5 years will do the same with Distcount stores at this moment.

2. If we point out that there is a difference btw them, as in E, the assumption will be broken and weaken the conclusion of the argument. _________________

[quote="notahug"]Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened.B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores.C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

Its really a shame on me; Just as am about to understand the reasoning, something else confuses me. Please could someone take the pain to analyze the above structure again..perhaps, i will get the explanation this time around.

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened.[No link to conclusion]B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores. [ New stores were not in the same competition]C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had. [ No relevance ]D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades. [Population increase will support the argument]E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s. [this would also support the argument]

The logic as I understand: as Spendless is the rival of discount stores, it will force them to close even if new discount stores open after Colsons's. Thus, the district will remain vacant. But, the premise states the reaction of existing discount stores and not a new ones. we do not know whether Spendless could have the same effect on the newly closed discount stores. Am I missing something here? experts please

Argument says; Discount Stores expected to close, but wont be closed for long

Reason: when Calson (non discount opened).....shops closed but later vacant spaces occupied by new shops

Take away: Calson -> non discount : Other shops reopened

Question: what type of shops and why, obviously different from Calson and exploiting a market nitche.

Now: Spendless (discount ) will open, But according to previous trend, vacated shop areas will reopen...will this be true?

B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores. The previous nitch which facilited for reopening no longer exist, so weaken the argument by putting a hole in the previous cycle

E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s. : Then the shops should not even closed in the first place both during the opening of Colson and expected opening of spendless - Wrong answer because it does nothing to the above argument

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to closewithin five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department storethat just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since theopening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at thelocation of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not competewith Colson’s.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I think it is E. The argument that the discount stores are expected to close within 5 years is based on what happened to the non dscount stores having to compete with Colson's. HOwever, if those discount stores, in question, sell things that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's they will probably not close since they are not directly competing against them anymore. Basically, this argument becomes flawed with the information stated in E since the previous scenario, with the non discount store can not be translated to the new scenario, since they are not slightly different.

if the stem had also said that the non discount stores closed, even though they sold different things, then E would not weaken the argument.

Mark incomplete and come back for a second round but question will not improve

Also Discount store is opening up but info relates to a non discount store that opened earlier.

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they didbefore the SpendLess store opened. Colsons opned 5 years ago . Spendless will take customers from Colsons - irrelevant

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district sinceColson’s opened have been discount stores. yes material, coud not exit choice however because it does not complete the argument to strengthen or weaken it after al that is what he is addressing saying last time we had discount stores come u when Colsons was opened. But is the choice if already been there what now ( not elegant)

C>> At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as itever had.

C. could be irrelevant, lets look at the other choices - after all at least it could point to over capacity without any population argument

I went with C after much deliberation why B did not make the cut.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s populationwill grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are notavailable at either SpendLess or Colson’s.